In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| ... Unless your workload is very specifically single source, massive
| capture, then you should be running SSDs. Even if you are not running
| pure SSD, the case for tiered or hybrid storage makes itself.
|
| SSDs are faster. They have way lower latency. They consume less power.
| They take up less space.

The article, though, is mainly looking at what to buy
for business people buying hardware. That's not the
same thing as saying that you should replace your hard
disks with SSDs. And speed needs vary. I don't spend
my day moving photos from D drive to E drive. Other than
large data on USB sticks I never notice any sense of
waiting for data transfer. So the speed issue is relative.
A speed increase that might show up on a busy server
is not necessarily relevant on a PC.

you *clearly* have never used a computer with ssd.

the difference is *huge*. apps launch almost instantly. file access is
much faster.

ssd can give a huge boost to older systems, although it tends to be
bottlenecked by the disk controller speed. newer computers use pci ssd
which eliminates sata entirely.

So I don't see why there should be an "argument". SSDs
are up-and-coming. They're gradually getting cheaper.
The failure rates of both types are not encouraging. In
short, there are pros and cons. The biggest con, if you
don't already have SSDs but you do have hard disks, is
a large sum of money that you wouldn't otherwise need
to spend. Another quote from the same article:

"Similarly, SSDs are a terrible place to do a bunch of log file writes to;
eleventy squillion crappy little sub-K writes will burn out the SSDs in no
time."

that's complete bull****.

even if you hammer an ssd, it will likely outlast the computer in which
it's installed.

you'd have to write many gigs of data *every* day for it to even begin
to be an issue. writing lots of little log files won't make a dent at
all.

not only that but you'll generally get a warning of impending failure
as the write limit is reached and at that point, it's likely it will
become a read-only device, so even if you do somehow reach the limit,
you won't lose data. it depends on the controller, but there's no
technical reason why it can't do that.

So an SSD might make a good D drive, but probably not
such a good C drive. (Though I don't actually know how
much a "squillion" is. No surprise that the author is not one
of the British regulars at The Register. As much as the
British like to use their own slang overly much, at least
they don't talk like children.

it's actually well suited for a c: drive because the apps, system and
access to other commonly used files is *greatly* accelerated. again,
the difference is staggering.

using ssd for a data drive is mostly a waste. the files are less
commonly used and/or not speed critical and there's generally a lot
more of them. an extra second to load a movie makes no difference when
the movie itself is an hour or two.